Dan L

OK. Another long quoting post, methinks. *thumbs up to Justin and Shinji Ikari* [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Ah but you are saying that I believe in Evolution.[/B][/QUOTE] Actually what I meant was that evolution is the general non-religious standpoint. Sure, there are lots of other different ideas, but most of them are just someone's personal opinion. Creationism is hardly considered an established scientific fact, but there is ample evidence for it if you look. And I know James points to this "telling lies for God" book, but you'll find that the [i]respectable[/i] creationist science societies [b]rebuke[/b] the ones that fudge evidence in [i]exactly[/i] the same way, because telling lies to confirm what God says is to try to bring truth out of lies. Which is wrong. So yeah. My point is that evolution is pretty much the only other [i]established[/i] idea, hence it was naturally the one I referred to. That doesn't necessarily mean you believe it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]The thought that we as humans know what happened however long ago the univers, Earth, everything was created is assuming way too much. The possibilities are endless. To say that we in our maybe....thousand years of scientifically studying it know exactly what happened is just the opposite of what we've tried to do, its un-scientific.[/b][/quote] That's completely right. Every scientific method used to prove evolution and big bang theory is based on assumptions. The best one of all is the fact that the proof for the big bang stems from the assumption that there was a big bang at all. People assume that since the universe is expanding, it must have at some point been very small and then it "exploded". However, since we've only been measuring things and recording them for a few thousand years, we have NO IDEA what could have happened before that point. Scientists assume the earth formed out of a cosmic cloud of some sort, and hence there would have been a certain amount of uranium in the rocks. Thus they can predict the age of rocks by the uranium levels in them. However that is still based on big assumptions, and when you extrapolate assumptions back to 1,000,000 times as long as we've been measuring things, it simply doesn't work because you can't possibly know what happened before hand. Evolution itself is based on the assumption that intermediary species exist. However they've never once been found. It is merely assumed that they are out there somewhere, and thus fills the great big hole known as the intermediary species problem. Is assuming something's there DESPITE not finding it really scientific? So yeah. In human terms, "knowledge" comes and "knowledge" goes. Despite the huge number of things that we still know as proven today, from long ago, there were also a great number of really messed up ideas that were [i]accepted as fact[/i] at the time. And people always argued that the evidence was overwhelming. Then what happened? it got proven wrong, or just got forgotten. I suggest you don't get too confident in what the human race finds true today, because human truth changes drastically over time, and much as the evidence is compelling now, the people of tomorrow (if there are any) will look down on us with their far more advanced and correct ideas, which in themselves are just as flawed. Note: I wasn't disgreeing with you there lalaith.. I think I supported your point more than anything. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Thats what we are as humans..[/b][/quote] Yeah. lol. Both the Bible and history support that one. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Evolution... Evolution itself makes no sense to me. Evolution is a long process and it contradicts other scientific facts out there. Of course thats stating that these "Scientific Facts" are correct. Its to messy for my taste, as you said random. The selecton of what it becomes isn't really random it has one goal. When a species evolves theres one reason and only one. Survival. Thats what Evolution is about, survival of the fittest. You know the whole Darwin thing. I think everything does evolve, but thats not what started it. Something started has an end, and evolution is forever going. Everything ages, everything expires, and everything changes. Thats evolution. So saying it started the world wouldn't make sense, because it would evolve from nothing. Nothing in essance can't evolve into something, you must have a (very small or large) substance to start the evolution. Evolution comes from the Theory of the Big Bang, well what doesn't make sense there is the whole what started the bang. Well yes I know thats commonly a theolgical argument against the Big Bang theory but its a valid point.[/b][/quote] the first bit: yeah, like I said. human understanding is always flawed, regardless of how much improved we think we've become. Certain things we do improve our understanding on. Much as many like to think otherwise, the Earth is most definitely round. And the Earth goes around the sun. The bible does NOT contradict that for two reasons. 1: The passages which "contradict" that speak of the sun travelling across the sky. Look at the sky for a while, and look at what you see. It does move across the sky. That's just what we see as humans. That doesn't mean that when the Bible says it moves across the sky, it means that it's up in the sky going around the Earth. It means the Bible is written from an Earthly perspective, and not a heavenly one, which it is. 2: The people who refuted Galileo's ideas were basing their ideas on Aristotle's idea that "philosophy is more important than science" and thus scientific backing meant nothing at all to them. If you look into it, you'll find the church actually supported his claims. They still supported his claims even after the trial incident. However the main reason for the trial was that Galileo called the pope a fool. Understandably, no-one likes to be called that. But yeah. My point is a lot of ideas are kept, however there are a great deal which are scientifically discarded. Like the elements system of fire, water etc. That was considered science at one point, and all the "evidence" pointed to it. Only because they didn't know all the facts. and neither do we. The second bit: Everything evolves in a fashion. However the evolution that we observe is not what creates new species. It creates new variants of a species, like sub species which are thinner, fatter, smaller, larger, striped, spotted, long-beaked, etc. but they're still essentially the same thing. If you were to breed two different kinds of cat you'd get another type. However if you tried to breed a cat to a hippo, it just wouldn't work. And not just because of the size. What we essentially see is adaptation. Species becoming streamlined to their new surroundings, we do NOT see evolution, ie. new [b]types[/b] of creature come about. An example of this is the fact that in 100 years, we've observed around 2 1/2 million generations of E.Coli. We've forced mutations multiple times. But we've ended up with E. coli every time. Adapted E.coli, but E.coli all the same. This is the supposed proof for evolution, and it's what always had me convinced. But it does not support the idea of evolution into new species, as opposed to evolution [i]within a species[/i], which is both proven, and is also not counter-creationist at all. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]On the Evolution vs. Creationism thing. Studying your surroundings prooves that everything evolves, thats a fact. I mean ever Theologians believe that species evolve, just not that, thats what started it all. But if everything else evolves, why haven't we? Sure our brains may have grown bigger, but every species known to man has made a physical appearance change. They have grown something, or made something that has increased their survival rate. Humans to my knowledge haven't done that. I may be wrong, but it doesn't make sense that humans would be the perfect being needing no change from the start. Everything has to have a rough draft.[/b][/quote] Humans don't evolve? Ever noticed the difference between the appearances of people in different parts of the world? In hotter climates people are black, in cooler ones they are white. In china and the far east, they're kind of in-between and have different shaped eyes. That doesn't mean people should be treated differently. We are all exactly the same species- but that just shows my point. People have been living in seperate places in the world for however long, and ultimately they've all grown to be slightly different to one another. THAT is evolution within a species. but not creation of new species. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Of course I could be completely wrong, I could be looking at this in too much of a "this has to be sensable" thing. Everything could be non-sensible, after all sense is something humans created. So I really don't know whats out there, and where it came from. All I know is it is out there, and I'm here. So untill that time I have to leave I'm going to enjoy my stay, and not worry about it.[/b] Sense isn't so much something that humans created, with created being in the past. But it's something we create. It's based on our current understanding at all times, rather than some objective idea of what "sense" is. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Heaven, Hell, the after life. All are mysteriouse that will only be solved at the end (or the beginning if you wanna look at it that way) of a person's journey. When that day comes I'm sure I may have to swallow some of these words, I'm sure everyone will.[/b][/quote] It's best not to wait til the end to decide your view on it. If any one of the majority of religions that believes in heaven/hell is right, then there's a lot to lose if you make the wrong choice. And anyone who says they're not afraid of going to hell (as in, they wouldn't mind if they were sent there) doesn't know a lot about it. And anyone who thinks they can get good with Satan and rule over hell knows even less. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Oh and also I didn't say I wanted a deep dark nothingness when I die. And who said it'd be a deep dark nothingness. It could very well be just like your sleeping, and you never wake up. We could just live in our dreams after we die. Yet that wouldn't be possible scientifically because the brain is dead without blood and blood stops when you die. ALso the brains stops when you die so yeah thats pretty much out of the question. If we are looking at it schientifcally but hey like I've many times we'll never know.[/b][/quote] How exactly do you live in your dreams when your brain has already died and rotted? I mean, once your consciousness goes, what else is there if you don't believe in an afterlife of any kind? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]The thought of an after life I think is a human creation. Just like fantasy. I think its a wish that when we go away, we still some how are here. Still some how stay connected with the ones that we truly cherish. Its only human nature to be scared of nothing in itself, and to be scared of loosing everything that you've faught for, worked for, and recieved in your life.[/b][/quote] But [i]why[/i] is it human nature. Or more specifically, why is it [i]not[/i] animal nature? What benefit do we actually gain from being afraid of something unless there's something afterwards to be afraid of (ie. if you make the wrong choice)? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]I think humans just don't want to be forgotten, and to go to the after life would some how give people a sense of meaning, that humans themselves were high enough to live after death. To show that they are strong, and to show that no matter what we will survive. To survive the essance of nature. Humans are apart of nature after all![/b][/quote] The essence of nature is to live, and keep the species going. Obviously that means it's good to survive to a certain extent, but the "survival as the essence of nature" generally applies to a species as a whole more than an individual. The individual may wish to survive and keep the species going, but it does not fear death as an individual, for the benefit of nature as a whole. The essence of nature itself is not survival but balance. The survival of one individual species is based upon the interactions of nature as a system as a whole. All finely tuned by, in my view, God. However He gave us dominion over the lot of it, and we are far from perfect. Hence wherever we go the balance is disturbed. How else do you explain one single species having such power over everything else on the planet? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]So thats my thoughts, everyone's arguments are valid in my opinion, everyone here is right. Because they believe their own thing.[/B][/QUOTE] But my belief, to be right, makes it necessary that other beliefs are wrong. So how can everyone be right if, for me to be right, you must be wrong? Just thought I'd let you ponder that. (By the way. A lot of what I said was completely non-based on what you said or believe. Therefore if you come across an argument against something you don't believe, it was more for everyone else than it was against you, lalaith ;) ) Moving on to Mitch.. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray] As I said before, I see God and afterlife as hope in many people's eyes. They simply believe in him because so many millions of other people believe in him, and simply because they do want to live forever.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Mitch, I went without God or any kind of substantial belief for 19 years. I could have gone for far longer and not really cared. I always felt that there was something kind of watching over my life.. but heh.. I was just a lucky guy, I thought. But then last year, little by little he started seeping into my life. And I resisted. And I nearly brought about my own end, but He brought me through it and ultimately I ended up believing in and following God. [b]NOT[/b] becuase I was told to. [i]EVER[/i]. [b]NOT[/b] because I wanted eternal life. I really didn't deserve it at the time. But because despite what I'd done, he still cared for me, and I could feel that. Earlier, on the day I actually asked God into my life I pretty much broke down due to things I needn't go into. And it just happened that there was a church service later that evening that I said I'd go to, just so I could say "no, I definately don't believe that" afterwards. But at the time I really didn't want to go at all. It just didn't feel right. I ended up going and the speaker was talking about people who've had their lives broken down, and how God heals them. Some of the things he said spoke to me in kind of a personal way, despite the fact that 1: he wasn't from that church and thus didn't know me at all 2: the people from church didn't know me very well either 3: the people from church had no clue what happened earlier that day, or even that anything did. 4: this was during the talk, he wasn't speaking to me directly at all, nor had he seen me That night I asked God into my life, not in the church, but in my room. Not out of pressure but [b]of my own will[/b]. So yes. Many people do believe in god for the sake of it. but there are also a [b]lot[/b] of people who don't. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]Hope is a funny thing. It certainly is, but what is it? Can you give me an exact noun for it? One that explains it specifically and powerfully? Perhaps you can and perhaps you can't.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] The ultimate hope is in grace. Grace is something we don't deserve because let's face it, we're an evil bunch. but God gives it anyway. why? because those who believe are better? No because he loves all his creations and wants none of them to perish. You can put it down to "emotions" all you want, but the thing is, if you never experience it, you'll never know. If the majority of the human race were born blind, they'd argure that the few that claimed to be able to see were lying, on the grounds that the majority couldn't see. The few were just being hopeful and believing in something that's not there. Of course, there'd also be a fair number who claimed to be able to see but they were just blind too. Get the idea? The reason you can't see hope, Mitch, is because you've never experienced God. Thus you can't see it. Thus you're trapped in this blindness that stops you from seeing the reason behind hope, and thus hope seems meaningless to you. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]To me, now, it does not seem my life does have a meaning. I'm just here to live and die like so many others, and like you and him and [i]everyone[/i].[/size][/font][/color][/B][/QUOTE] A beautiful sunset is neither meaningful nor beautiful without eyes to see it. Refer to last point about spiritual blindness. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]I think watching [i]The Matrix: Reloaded[/i] caused me to consider many things. Hope is one of those. It's what makes us so strong and so weak. And I don't want to hold on to something that's more an apparition than anything else it possibly can be. I'd rather die knowing a truth, but there is no truth. There is only the realization the end is the end. The beginning is the beginning.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] If there is no truth, how can there be no truth if "there is no truth" must be true for there to be no truth? Again, refer to spiritual blindness. If you can't see the truth, it's easy to say that there is no truth. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Battosai [/i] [B]I found these stories somewhat sad yet entertaining/hilarious. What do you think?[/B][/QUOTE] I don't think the last one was funny at all... never mind "entertaining" or "hilarious"

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080]Yes, but what I'm trying to get at is that the implication is that you're either a "homosexual supporter" or "curious about homosexuals".[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah. OK, I accept that it's implied that it's either one or the other and I see where you're coming from. I was just more concerned about what the two options were rather than the fact that there were only two.. but yeah. I see what you're getting at now.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080]But what I mean is, she's implying that you're either a person who wants to see Square [i]promote[/i] homosexuality (as one might promote a political agenda) or that you are curious about the homosexual lifestyle (which in itself is a bit of a misnoma, but that's a seperate issue).[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I dunno.. the word Ginny actually used was "support", which has different meaning entirely to "promote". when you support something you hold it up when it doesn't always have the power to do so on it's own. In the same way that women's rights would have gotten nowhere if not for it's supporters. To promote, however, is to try and push something into someone's viewpoint, whether discreetly or blatantly. And that, I think, is where the misunderstanding (if it is such) is coming from. When Ginny said "support" I interpreted it as simply that. Not to promote them or essentially advertise the homosexual lifestyle, but rather to support them in any way possible, ie. not placing limits on which characters they use based on their sexuality. So yeah.. I think the key point is the difference between supporting something and promoting it. I support a couple of charities that I know of, however I don't go about handing out leaflets for them or anything (promoting)

In my opinion, the most beautiful thing a woman can have is faith. And I say that from my current situation :p so yeah Beauty is in God's creation. He made it and saw it was good. And he made us in his image. And thus, we see that it is good. From a Christian viewpoint, I think it's as simple as that ;)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cassive_Munt [/i] [B]Well I guess I'm used to it. My mam is 30 and my dad is 50. I've lived with it for 17 years now and I don't feal the least ashamed.:p :eek: :D [/B][/QUOTE] There's very little difference in emotional maturity between a 30 and a 50 year old, so that's not the problem. it's when someone's excessively young, like early teens, and with someone a lot older ;). so yeah. when I said "very noticable", I meant as in if one of them was in their early teens. edit: 17 years?... does that imply that they were together when they were 13 and 33?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080]No, I don't think so [i]at all[/i]. Didn't you read Shy's post in its entirity? I think he brought up some extremely valid points.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Just so you know, I'm writing the majority of this post without reading the rest of yours, so I can elaborate on what I meant. Then I'll read the rest and respond if necessary. I should have narrowed down my quote.. I wasn't actually referring to the whole post but this bit: [quote]Why can't a straight person want to see more diverse characters and storylines in the games they play? According to that statement, anyone who supports homosexuality might possibly be a homosexual. This is a very immature "Us vs. Them" philosophy, Ginny. I support women's rights, but do I have to worry about suddenly becoming a woman?[/quote] I know Shy raised some valid points. The point I was making is that I personally don't think Ginny tried to say the opposite. In other words, I see his points, but I don't see how they're counter points to what Ginny said. I'll elaborate on what I mean now (I just had an exam so I had very little time before): [quote][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn: I guess the real question I want to ask is, why do you want to see SquareEnix put a same-sex relationship into their games? As both James and I pointed out, media in general (games, movies, tv, etc.) have not done the best job in portraying life accurately.[/i] Posted by Shy: Maybe they want to see a minority-group get equal treatment in video games, especially since gays and lesbians make up a fairly-large percentage of video gamers. It is just the same as demanding that Square-Enix put more of a specific minority in their games.[/quote] This particular statement I had no problem with. [quote][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn: So, without sounding spiteful (and if you think I am, then you might want to check your maturity level on this subject ..), why? Is it because you wish to see SquareEnix support same sex relations, or is it because you are curious about them and hope to have some questions answered?[/i] Posted by Shy: Why can't a straight person want to see more diverse characters and storylines in the games they play? According to that statement, anyone who supports homosexuality might possibly be a homosexual. This is a very immature "Us vs. Them" philosophy, Ginny. I support women's rights, but do I have to worry about suddenly becoming a woman?[/quote] The assumption is that being "curious" and "wanting questions answered" necessarily infers that you are a homosexual yourself. If not then I have no idea where that statement came from. Well how does that work? I'm not in the slightest bit curious about heterosexuals, because I am one. I am not the "average" heterosexual, because there's no such thing, but the point is that I go for women, and that's just the way I am. Therefore I'm not remotely curious about men who go for women, as opposed to men who go for men. I'm not remotely curious about homosexuals and their lifestyles as an alternative either, but that's personal preference. I choose not to be particularly interested, in the same way that I choose not to get over-excited about some things the way my friends do. However some heterosexuals are curious because they see homosexuality as a lifestyle different to their own. One which because of it's nature, they can't understand on their own. Thus they have a fair number of questions about it. THAT is what Ginny meant, not "Do you want Square to support homosexuals, or are you just one yourself?" So yeah. That's the assumption that I was on about. [quote][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn: Perhaps you want to see a game that shows tolerance as a theme? It's been done. Done well, done badly, but it's been done.[/i] Shy posted: And haven't there been a million different games which feature a "Good vs. Evil" theme? Just because a concept has been explored before does not mean that it should never be looked at again.[/quote] I think that what Ginny meant was "Perhaps you want to see a game that shows tolerance as a theme", as in, as a new thing. As "groundbreaking stuff" which hasn't been done before, and is original. In which case it's already been done. That isn't to say it can't be done again, but rather that ground has already been broken, so if you want it sheerly for the novelty value then there's not a lot of point. However, if you want to see an increase in these kind of games as more of an equal rights thing than just breaking new ground, then that's not a bad thing. [quote][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn: My mom and I had a long talk last night about this subject. We both agreed that it is ridiculous that people think that homosexuality is a much worse sin that, say, lying. In my belief, it's not. And if you can just hold on a moment for my point (I'm not out to offend anyone, just make a point here), then I would just say that if I wanted a game that focused around a pathelogical liar, it, quite frankly, wouldn't be done any better.[/i] Posted by Shy: But Final Fantasy games are full of "sins." There are thieves, murderers, prostitutes, and witches. How can it be acceptable for a game to include black magic, and not homosexuality? This is a completely biased double-standard.[/quote] I think Shy interpreted this point as meaning "regardless of the kind of sin, the main character shouldn't have any of it", and then he thought that she was opposed to homosexuality in games, and thus saw a double-standard. Actually, what Ginny meant was "all sins are equal". That's it. And that if you were to base a game around a liar, it would not be done any better than if it was based around a homosexual. Before you interpret that, bear these things in mind: 1: This comment was obviously directed towards people who think homosexuality is a sin, and 2: It's also obviously directed towards people who view it as one of the "big sins" Hence when she said it's on equal ground with lying and such, she is essentially saying they're wrong on that. OK, so she views homosexuality as a sin, despite that, but she never said it should be excluded from FF games. The most that Ginny has done is to challenge people's motives for wanting this aspect in games, NOT to say that they shouldn't be in there. The reason for that being that we ALL sin, regardless of how large, how little, or whatever. Thus excluding a particular kind of person from being in a game because they are "sinners" is absolutely the wrong idea altogether, because in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter [i]what[/i] you consider sin, because we all commit some form of sin and are just as bad as each other. Summary of the last paragraph: Everyone sins. Therefore to exclude a type of person based on sin is a silly thing to do. At the end of the day, even though I believe homosexuality, or the act of practicing it, is a sin, there are so many other sins out there that we all commit daily that I can't possibly be on any higher ground than anyone else. And even if I were to tell people that I believe homosexuality wrong, that's all I can say.. "I believe it to be wrong". Emphasis on the "it". There's a common misconception that if someone sins, that makes them a bad person in the Christian view, and thus as a bad person you go to hell. That is known as [i]CONDEMNATION[/i]. However, the correct Christian approach is known as [i]CONVICTION[/i], whereby you let people know [b]you[/b] opinion on their actions but you do [b]NOT[/b] pass judgement on them for it. ie. you can tell them you [i]believe[/i] they're wrong but under [b]NO[/b] circumstances should you say "you're going to hell for your actions". That's just wrong. It's called "judging others" and the Bible warns against it. But anyway. Yeah. That's pretty much what I meant by "assumptions" and "stereotypes" and whatnot. I didn't mean that Shy necessarily intended to make such assumptions, but rather, coming from the same perspective as Ginny, I think I know what she meant. Shy [i]did[/i] raise good points, like you said. However I don't think that Ginny intended to imply the opposite. EDIT: [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080]Ginny, are these the only two options here? It seems as though people who support the idea of including homosexuals in video games are either people who have some kind of subversive agenda (ie: wanting Square Enix to push a particular point of view on everyone) or that they have some sort of curiosity about homosexuals. That is what you said and that is what Shy responded to. My response would only be the same as his. It seems to me that you're discounting that idea that people might [i]simply[/i] want to see equal treatment of all human beings. Maybe that should have been your third option?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I thought that when Ginny said "Is it because you wish to see SquareEnix support same sex relations", I thought the key word was "support". ie. the same way that people support women's rights or equal rights for everyone. It doesn't mean they have to be pushed into everything just for the sake of it, but rather that they get the same kind of treatment as the well-established trends which don't need the support referred to. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080][i]"This is a very immature "Us vs. Them" philosophy, Ginny. I support women's rights, but do I have to worry about suddenly becoming a woman?"[/i] This is part of Shy's response. Why take issue with it? I think Shy's comparison about women's rights is particularly appropriate. If I want to see a woman in a game, does it mean that I'm either curious about women or that I am really gunning for some kind of feminist agenda that I want SE to promote? Nope and nope. Perhaps I want to see women in games because I feel that woman have historically been treated unfairly and that all human beings should be able to be included in games. See what I mean?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] There is a distinct difference between being curious about women and "worrying about suddenly becoming a woman". Which is the key difference between what Ginny said and what Shy said. Ginny was merely implying that some people may be curious about the lifestyle. As some people actually are. NOT that they might want to become a homosexual, or that they should be worried about becoming one. As for the other option, I've already said that I think she was referring to equal rights rather than an actual push to see homosexuality in games. If she [i]did[/i] mean that, then it means that only [i]one[/i] of the two options is a bad thing. I see your points against what Ginny said if she was not referring to equal rights, because that would mean she was asking a question with only bad answers. Which explains what you and Shy meant. I assumed you thought it was referring to equal rights. maybe not. OK. After your elaboration, James, I think this was more of a misunderstanding of each other's meanings than a conflict of opinion.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shy [/i] [B][size=1]Maybe they want to see a minority-group get equal treatment in video games, especially since gays and lesbians make up a fairly-large percentage of video gamers. It is just the same as demanding that Square-Enix put more of a specific minority in their games.[/size] [/b] [size=1]Why can't a straight person want to see more diverse characters and storylines in the games they play? According to that statement, anyone who supports homosexuality might possibly be a homosexual. This is a very immature "Us vs. Them" philosophy, Ginny. I support women's rights, but do I have to worry about suddenly becoming a woman?[/size] [size=1]And haven't there been a million different games which feature a "Good vs. Evil" theme? Just because a concept has been explored before does not mean that it should never be looked at again.[/size] [/b] [size=1]But Final Fantasy games are full of "sins." There are thieves, murderers, prostitutes, and witches. How can it be acceptable for a game to include black magic, and not homosexuality? This is a completely biased double-standard. -Shy[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Shy, I suggest you read some of Ginny's other posts for some perspective on what she meant, rather than make assumptions based on that post alone. In fact, most of the assumptions you made are based on a stereotypical view of Christians and "homophobes" and the two being the same, rather than [i]anything[/i] that was in that post. and with regards to the placement of the wink smiley, that was in the context that she was asking people kindly to [i]grow up[/i] if they thought she was sounding spiteful, not that it was in any way related to the question. And for the question itself, it was a question. Not a conviction, ie. don't [b]assume[/b] that she was implying that the majority of people want to see homosexuals in games for one reason or the other, but rather it was a [b]question[/b] of why [b]you[/b] (being everyone) want to see them in there. Not an implication.

*quotes a few posts* [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B]So, you go to heaven or hell depending on who you believe in? But what happens if you're wrong. What happens that if, after all this time, the god/s you believed in weren't real and you're going to hell for that...it's slightly unfair don't you think? [/B][/QUOTE] lol. Who are you to judge what's fair and what's not, eh? If God really is there and really is as big as we religious types think, who are humans to decide on what's fair and what's not? If God created us and we all fall short of [i]perfection[/i], which he asks of us, he has every right to send us all to hell, whether we be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, White, Black, Man, Woman, or what. If God, who asks perfection, were to be completely fair, we'd all be going to hell tomorrow morning. However there's a little thing called "grace" which means that he doesn't, and that if we accept his grace we don't have to go to hell. That makes me [b]no[/b] better than you, and it doesn't make it fair. It's just the way God is. If you accept his grace you'll be forgiven. By the way, no, I can't say without any doubt that I'm right on the matter, but [i]if[/i] the God of Israel (yes, he was Israel's God long before ours) really is the truth, then that's his way of doing things. If not then I'm completely wrong, however these are my beliefs. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Like DeathKnight said there is no definite way to know, untill well....you're dead. I don't know if you think about it the concept is rather interesting. An after life, I don't know. If you look at Earth everything has been placed there for a reason, and everything is sensible to a means. The thought of an after life is not sensible. It has no definite benifit to anything besides oneself. If there is an after life I doubt there is such a thing as Heaven and Hell. That is just like any other child's tale (on a different level) making sure we do what is right to a human's standard. Does that make sense? [/B][/QUOTE] I love what you said up there "If you look at Earth everything has been placed there for a reason". Tell me this, since when did Evolution have any form of reasoning? It doesn't. Evolution by principle is a purely random process. It doesn't know where it's going or where it wants to go. There is no plan of action, things just end up where they end up. Things don't fall into place, but they fall where they fall and if it's in a decent place it stays. The sheer fact that [i]everything[/i] on this planet has a purpose, whether it be the distance from the sun, the rotation speed, the fact that we have water, and a whole load of things we need, could not have come about by evolution alone. There's far more arguments against non-theistic (atheist) evolution, but I'll go into them if anyone asks. Now the point is that everything points towards a creator of some sort, some kind of supreme being that follows, and even creates, order and reason in the natural world. Pretty much every religion which believes in a creator believes in an afterlife or reincarnation of some sort. Therefore it pretty much follows reason that there is one, if any one of those is right. If none of them are right then well.. I hope eternal nothingness is appealing to you.. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]*slays her attack dogs* What if you're wrong? What if religion truely is wrong in every fashion? Outdated, outmatched, outclassed. Clinging to life as its crimes are revealed. But alas. The taint of 'holy' is on your skin like acid.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] *gets better, stronger attack dogs* "outdated, outmatched, outclassed".. right... that sounds so cool and yet so little backing. Random tough guy phrases don't scare me or waver my beliefs at all. Try harder. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadO MagE [/i] [B]1. when god gave man free will he created sin. how? he gave man the will to chose his/her own destiny thus giving man the ultimate power even a power that he cannot controll. [/B][/QUOTE] In genesis 1, God created the universe. first he created light. He said "let there be light" and there was. Then he seperated it from the darkness and saw that it was good. But the darkness was already there to begin with. In the same way, everything that God created was good, but evil, or lack of good, was already in the world to begin with. Thus, God didn't create sin, but he created good, and sin is merely a "lack of good" that we fall into as we separate from God. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]I believe that it's impossible to believe in something until you really see it. Until it's illustrated logically and certainly and percisely in your mind, your body. And physically.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I've already said this to you before, I think. I have seen it. Not the afterlife, but God. Not with my human eyes, but deep in me, and not in a vision but more as a presence.. one which can't simply be explained by emotions. And on top of that, I've seen so many different confirmations of my faith through answered prayers, things coming up out of the blue, which I was told about through prophecy, and a huge number of other things. If you want details I'll give them, but I'm trying to keep this post as short as possible (cos it's really long.. heh) [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]I don't think it's anyone's place to really believe in God and afterlife and heaven and hell. They can in their mind. In the core of their brain. Under emotional and hopeful places. But deep deep deep deep deep deep, so very [i]deep down[/i], there's a side of everyone. Even those that explicitly say that they believe in God, that they speak God's word. There's doubt. There's denial.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, there is that doubt. But at the same time, it is overpowered by the sheer number of times that my faith has been affirmed. Everyone has lingering doubts about many things. "should I have done that?", "what if" and that kind of thing. It doesn't make my belief any less though. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]When you die you don't breathe. You don't see. You don't know. All we know is that you die and that's all there is to it. How can anyone assume that you go to some imaginary illusion up in the sky, or down in the ground? It's my best guess as anyone's best guess in some ways. Believe in what you want. Cling on to God and hope and something. It's better than dying alone and cold. It's better because you have emotions. You have memory. You have feeling.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Mitch, why do you think people even want eternal life? I have never seen an animal that actually fears death to the point that we do. Yes, they will avoid un-necessary risks that would kill them, but they don't go out of their way to avoid death. Once one of our cats died. The other licked it's face once, after it diedd, and then left it at that. It didn't mourn, or grieve, or walk about depressively for days on end. Sure, we can never know what animals are thinking, but these things show in body language. You can normally tell if someone or something is upset without even having to ask, especially if they're [i]really[/i] upset. But humans, we strive to find eternal life, and we fear the nothingness of a death without anything afterwards. Why on earth would something evolve that way? I mean, nothing wants to die un-necessarily, but what benefit is there to [i]fearing[/i] death, as opposed to simply wanting to avoid it? You could argue that it makes perfect sense, but then if you're arguing from a "we all evolved and are nothing more than evolved aniumals" point of view then it makes [i]no[/i] sense whatsoever, unless the reason we want to think there is a heaven and hell is because there actually is one, and God wants us to experience it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]I don't even want to go to heaven if there is one. No one, in my opinion, would deserve to be there. God forgives. Hope forgives. But blood and wrongs don't oversee the rights. If God's perfect then he knows this.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] *refers to earlier point* Exactly, no-one deserves to go there. You have that sussed. However, God forgives because he created us all, and he doesn't want to see any of his creations perish in eternal hell. Regardless of whether they deserve to or not. meh.. I can't be bothered to say any more right now. May continue a bit later..

..... Do you people actually read the thread, or even have any idea what's going on? (that comment is not aimed at those who obviously do) it's already been dropped becuase the lawyer knew it wouldn't happen from the start, and you still call it a stupid idea?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080]First is the word "often". I notice that people frequently say [b]off-ten[/b]. But that's not correct. The 't' is silent. [b]Off-en[/b].[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] lol.. pronunciations of words vary a fair bit. Around my area we rarely pronounce 'H's at the beginning of words. Like "Hanley" (the local town centre) and "Hand" become "'Anley" and "'And", despite the fact that they're still spelt the same. and there are probably other equally dodgy things that we say around here out of force of habit. So yeah. My point is I think you can allow a little bit of flexibility when it comes to pronunciation :p

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by star fighter [/i] [B]i mean...if you love someone who is a few years younger, why should you not be with them, just because of what other people think of you? [/B][/QUOTE] I don't think its the "few years" that is the issue at all. the issue is when there's a [i]very noticable[/i] age difference, like between 14 and 22 or something. Or maybe that's what you mean. I dunno. it depends how you define "a few"

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cassive_Munt [/i] [B]WhEn LoVe iS CoNsErnEd aGe DoEsN'T MaTtEr. ThErE ShOUlD Be nO IsSUE nO MatTeR WhAt AgE! [/B][/QUOTE] right. No matter what. So a 40 year old is justified to love a 4 year old (romantically) is what you're saying? if that's not what you're saying then what you said is not true. (OS: What's with the.. CaPitAl LetTers Mid-wOrd???)

(To Mitch) Deus Ex Machina: *feels missed* [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Desbreko [/i] [B][color=indigo]Discombobulated[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] .....That's a real word?.. heh.. I always thought it was made up.. it sounds kind of like a word that a kid would make up for taking something apart. Or I think so anyway. kind of like "thingamajig" is a word kids made up for "thing".. heh Studying biochem, I come across far too many long words.. Trishydroxymethylmethylamine Immunoelectrophoresis Phosphofructokinase and my all time favourite, [b]P[/b]hospho[b]e[/b]nol[b]p[/b]yruvate [b]c[/b]arboxy[b]k[/b]inase (abbreviated to PEPCK)

[quote][b]Oreo Lawsuit Dunked[/b] SAN FRANCISCO - Californians rejoice! You won't have to smuggle Oreo cookies into the state after all. San Francisco attorney Stephen Joseph says his move to outlaw the tasty cookies has crumbled. He's withdrawing his lawsuit against Kraft Foods. [i]Joseph says he only wanted to get the word out about the dangers of unlabeled trans fats in the chocolate-cookies-with-white-stuff-in-the-middle.[/i] Kraft spokesman Michael Mudd says the courts aren't the place to make nutrition policy. He says Kraft Foods continues to research ways to get trans fat out of Oreos while preserving the flavor. Joseph's suit contended trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat. Trans fat is not listed with other nutritional information on the package.[/quote] *points to italicised bit*

"Deus Ex Machina" When it's all one word like my AIM SN, deusexmachina92, you wouldn't be surprised at all the kind of names people see in there. I won't elaborate cos you should be able to figure that out.. heh Also very few can really pronounce it right in my experience. Hence the name change.. heh

Mitch, I didn't think empathy allowed you to control people's emotions. Heh.. maybe I was wrong on that.. heh If I had any super power I wanted it would be the ability to look like you're working when you're not, and then be able to blame it on someone else without getting caught :toothy: That's also what I'd do with that power :p And I'd say that's pretty evil. heh. In a comical kind of way. Not REALLY evil or anything like that. As for who I'd team up with, it really doesn't matter cos I wouldn't be doing any of the work.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Chinchiromon [/i] [B]it's the worst sin and im not even christian but god created Adam and eve not adam and Steve.....well i got the off my back[/B][/QUOTE] the bit "I'm not even a Christian" gets me... you're saying you don't believe in this God, and yet you point to the Biblical creation account as true? If you're not claiming the creation account to be true, then you have no point whatsoever. If you [i]are[/i] claiming it to be true, then I don't see how you can not believe in God in order fo rit to be true. Or maybe you're one of those people who believes in God but doesn't follow Him. Either way I don't quite see how you can raise that point. but heh, you did. However, biblically you would have a point, if you were Christian. God created man and woman to marry, rather than two of the same (and I don't think I need to express the biblical opinion on sex outside marriage). I wouldn't personally approve of a game with this kind of dimension in it, because I believe that in everything I do I should honour God by respecting his laws. However, it's up to you and how literally you want to take this stuff (if you want to take it at all).

[B][size=1][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=395245[/img] "*grins* hey Mum, you'll never guess what I found down [i]there[/i]!!!"[/b][/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]I think honestly Anarchy has to be instated without alot of violence, or 'troublemakeing'- It is, technically, supposed to be the ultimate form of human cooperation without any sort of upper authority, right? So how would violence be cooperation? Anarchists originally werent troublemakers at all, I believe that it was supposed to be extremely peaceful at first.. At least, if I remember that book right. But people take that out of context and focus on 'no authority' and instantly think "Hey, I dont like Authority. I'm an anarchist." And thusly more idiots are born. Feel free to correct me on the first paragraph, my memory is sort of sketchy.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Pretty much exactly what I mewant when I said it was misused and misunderstood. I didn't mean anarchy in it's true form is a form of causing trouble, but rather that's what the general opinion tends to be. Hence you get the "Hey, I dont like Authority. I'm an anarchist." viewpoint that you pointed out. But yeah, I agree with you there too.

Sorry about the last post. I was kind of in a bad mood as it was anyway. Just before I posted that, it took two hours for me to get to uni on the buses due to late buses, missed buses and traffic jams. So I was kind of not in my best mood, hence it kind of came out in a "look at all the stupid people" way. Sorry about that. I didn't quite intend it that way, as Sara said (or maybe I did.. I dunno, I was pretty peeved off at the time) Trans fats, from what I gather, are made by hydrogenation of unsaturated (I think) fats, which makes them turn solid, and it's what allows them to stay firmly solid at room temperature, unlike most fats. However, it's worth noting the main difference between saturated and unsaturated fats. The main difference between the two, chemically, is the amount of [i]hydrogen[/i] in the fatty acid molecules. Unsaturated fatty acids contain a fair number of carbon-carbon double bonds. Which, if you know organic chemistry, means that in a chain of carbon atoms, the number of oxygen/hydrogen atoms is reduced a lot. (oxygen and hydrogen make up the majority of non-carbon atoms in fats) Now, if you [i]hydrogen[/i]ate something, it involves adding hydrogen to the chemical structure. Hence it makes sense that if you add hydrogen to a saturated fat, which alters it's chemical structure (which it does) then the unsaturated fat is going to act more like a saturated fat, because the carbon double bonds will break and be replaced by [b]two[/b] extra hydrogen atoms for each one broken. Incidentally, the "saturation" referred to in saturated fats is the fact that the maximum number of bonds is formed within the chemical. Double bonds actually reduce that number, hence double bonds turn the fats "unsaturated"

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]Yes. There is very little understanding, its basically a way to be popular here- People saying they are 'communist' or 'fascist' generally dont even know where fascism was born, or who first came up with the theories of socialism. So I deal with alot of ignorant people tossing around political theorums so they can appear to be a bad *ss. Silly world.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Speaking of which, "I'm an anarchist" has to have become one of the most meaningless phrases ever, purely due to the majority of people who claim to be. On the most part they're not anarchists. Like you say, it just sounds cool to most of them. So yeah. I think that's kind of an agreement with what you said. (of course, there are true anarchists too (which I'm not) but most are just kids that want to look like troublemakers)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]You guys do realize that doctors and scientists are starting to realize that trans fat is probably the [i]worst[/i] thing in people's diets? [/B][/QUOTE] lol.. I just found that out too. I suggest the rest of you should probably look into this kind of thing before you go posting "this is stupid". I mean, all I had to do was search for "oreo ban trans fat" on yahoo, and pretty soon I ended up at a site detailing why trans fat is even more unhealthy than ordinary fat. It's not like it's that hard. Don't call something "stupid" when you haven't the slightest idea what you're on about. All that does is prove your own foolishness, in my view. Like Semjaza said, the banning of oreos on it's own is a bit drastic and stupid, but his aim is probably more to bring about an awareness that trans fat is dangerous.

[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=394251[/img] [b]Cat on the right: ... I think I just let one go Cat on the left: *jumps back* EWW![/b]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by vash t.s. [/i] [B]You should make a club forum:) [/B][/QUOTE] Firstly I wouldn't think it's a good idea, but also.... [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by vash t.s. [/i] [B]people can make clubs like in example: Anime Club Fan Art club[/B][/QUOTE] What exactly is the difference between have anime and fan art clubs, in seperate forums.. when there are already anime and art forums to suit their needs??